THE letter from Cllr Nick Parsons in last week’s W&G Standard confirmed what many have suspected for some time. In their Local Plan process CDC are ignoring other viable options in favour of the controversial, and much-detested, Bathurst development at Chesterton.

Since the publication of Cllr Parsons’ letter last week we, the public, have had the opportunity to view and compare the plans for both the Bathurst development at Chesterton and the Commercial Estates Group (CEG) development at Kemble Airfield.

There are striking differences between the two sites. The sites are very similar in size, yet very different in their capacity to deliver the 2,000+ houses that CDC think they need. Almost half the Bathurst site at Chesterton cannot be used for housing due to various constraints.

As a result, most of the houses will be in medium or high-density areas, with three-3 or 4 four-storey blocks, totally out of keeping for Cirencester.

The Kemble Airfield site does not have such inhibiting constraints on it, so the housing will be more spacious and attractive to live in, thereby facilitating better social cohesion.

Much of the Bathurst site at Chesterton is more than 2km from the centre of Cirencester – a huge disadvantage of that site. The Kemble Airfield site is only 2km from a railway station - a huge advantage of that site.

Good agricultural land would be destroyed by the Bathurst site at Chesterton, whereas the Kemble Airfield site is a brownfield site, much favoured by the government.

The Kemble Airfield proposals showed that to be the far superior site compared to the Bathurst site at Chesterton.

It beggars belief that a site with such huge potential is simply being ignored by CDC.

Crucially, CDC made the decision to ignore Kemble Airfield long before the Kemble Airfield proposals appeared as a submission by CEG on the Local Plan Reg 18 consultation on February 13, 2015.

Eleven months ago, in August 2014, someone within CDC revealed that there was a proposal to build a new village on Kemble Airfield. Surprisingly, CDC had asked for the proposal to be kept back and to be put forward in the next Local Plan!

Furthermore, a FOI request has revealed that there were in fact three meetings between CDC planners and CEG, including April 10, 2014 and December 18, 2014.

It does make you wonder in whose interests CDC are operating – those of the community, their own, or those of Bathurst Development. The answer is obvious.

ANNE GOLICS

The Maples